NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) There's a difference between not believing science and ignoring science. I don't ignore the fact that the Earth has hire C02 levels, lower levels of natural resources, and, depending on the time frame you're given, higher than normal temperatures. I do, however, question whether we caused that (temp change) or more precisely, how much of it we caused, and the effect that it will have on the world. Because these are all unknown and unquantifiable facts, and especially the effect part, which is a random ass guessing game of the future, you can't sit here and tell me that people questioning them are ignorant and choosing not to believe what's in front of their faces. Questioning it is good, it should be done. But that is far different than taking a stance, having no evidence to back it up, censoring the other viewpoint from public view whenever possible, etc. Better instead to find evidence otherwise, or try to find other causes or reasons. I am in agreement with these statements, up until the one in bold, where you take the same tack that Kap did - you dismiss science as random ass guessing, which isn't true at all. The random ass guessing is what the people here who are in denial about it are doing - guessing with no evidence. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) For the last two years since Katrina we were lead to believe by the overwhelming majority of scientists that global warming will cause not only an increase in hurricanes (or forces that cause them) but also an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. They forecasted the biggest number of hurricanes on record for each of the last two years. They used every piece of available data, every scientific model/program/whathaveyou, and spit out this grand theory that we were going to get pummeled by storm after storm. And you know what happened? Jack diddly f*ckin squat. For two years hurricanes have been a non-story. Um... non-story? They said 2005 would be awful, and guess what? It was! It was the worst year ever. And in 2006 the predictions of the hurricane center were right on, and it was an average-ish year. Where on earth are you getting data that says nothing happened? QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) I say bs. I say learn to get out of the pompous attitude that science is ALWAYS right and learn to be a little more open minded, ESPECIALLY when you try to project what will happen in the future. I find it hilarious that people are ok with Gore spouting about the end times because of global warming. How many billions have gone into the research of meteorology? How many meteorologists are working right now? They can't get a f*cking forecast correct 24 hours from now. And you want me to believe some government report about the end times in 10 years based on temperature levels from 1750? And my point about liberals creating global warming was meant more to convey that liberals politicized it. They took it out of science and threw it on cable tv news so people would think about an issue, get scared about it, and then equate liberals as their saviors to this impending disaster. You are certainly right that nothing can be predicted 100%. But, just so you understand, CO levels are not just higher, and temps are not just higher. CO levels are multiple times over what they have been in thousands of years! If you want to think that is just some normal fluctuation, then you are again choosing to be in denial of the evidence. You are also right about the politics of it - no question about it. The Dems are using the issue as best they can. But since they happen to be right to make it a big deal, I can accept that (sort of a right answer for the wrong reasons thing).

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) I was bored...and I like puns. Awesome. The Sturgeon General.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) First, I asked about youth. That disqualifies all of the names that were quoted, except Crede. And how many years with the Sox does Crede have left? One? If that? Second, yes, I'm asking if anyone thinks we have a single POTENTIAL all-star position player in the minors, since we don't have any young ones on the club (other than possibly Fields, who I listed myself). I'll name you one we HAD, but traded -- Chris Young. Do we have any others? It's not that hard of a question if you know the players in our system. I'm asking because I don't. I don't know our system as well as others, but I do see quite a few players who might become all star-caliber players. But I think, again, you just can't tell. You can see talent, skills, tools, work ethic, results, strengths and weaknesses, etc. Look at numbers, look at scouting reports. But its all guessing, especially as you go down the system to the really young players. And Chris Young is a perfect example. Future all star? No telling, but I'd say probably not. He might be though. He sure is talented, but he is also hitting .233 and striking out 4 times as often as he walks. So he is a big question mark, and that is a player who is currently playing MLB! I'd focus on an acquiring an abundance of talent and skills - something the system definitely lacks right now in position players. Players with big time tools, high potential, and solid work ethics. Those are your best bets.

Again, yes, the earth adapts. That's what it does. And Kap is right in saying we can't CONTROL it. What we can do, like whey any other system (particularly a living one), is minimize our impact on it. By doing so, we minimize the counteractions that system takes to balance the equation. This is important because some of those counteractions will harm us, since we're really just little gnats in this system. Its really pretty simple, and its analagous to the Golden Rule - do unto others. Except in this case the others is REALLY big and strong, and you really don't want to piss it off.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) You can put a hypothesis out there and pull out of your ass anything you want to support your point of view, even in a "lab" setting. Your findings aren't supposed to be biased, but if you think HUMAN CAUSED global warming exists, then damn near everything you're looking for is going to try and support that notion. No Kap, you can't. That's not science. Yes, scientists sometimes introduce bias when they desire a certain outcome. But in reading your graf here, if what you say is true, then all science is pointless (your quote: you can pull anything out of your ass). Which of course goes right back to what I said earlier - if you dismiss science en masse like that, then some people will feel better, because they can choose to believe whatever they want, regardless of facts or evidence. At that point, we cease to be a thinking society, and revert back to believing the earth is flat. You can choose to live in denial, or you can choose to accept when things sometimes aren't what you want them to be (and maybe even change them). I'd rather accept this reality and try to adapt to it or change it, then spend my energy trying really hard to pretend it isn't true.

Herm Schneider

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 09:18 AM) I wish I didn't have so much to do - because I'd seriously put together research that dismisses the notion of HUMAN CAUSED global warming. (there's a key phrase there). And all that research should ALSO see the light of day. That is the point here - allowing science to be science, instead of trying to turn it into an advertising campaign by the administration. Fortunately, much of it does anyway, regardless of attempted intimidation. But some of it undoubtedly isn't, which begs another question... what do we not know?

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 09:04 AM) And blame the evil-doers Bush Co all you want, but the fact is global warming is a liberal issue that moronic liberals think will buy them a ticket to the White House (*cough Al Gore *cough). So of course the Repubs are going to try to downplay it while liberals try to play it up like the greatest human disaster in the history of the world...hmm shocker, An Inconvenient Truth. I am just amazed that people can still think that, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise, which you even mention earlier in the same post. You know what? I have seen much more believable evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, than I have for the idea that global warming is not at least partially related to human activity. Up until now though, of course, I didn't believe either of those things because both sets of evidence are laughably weak. But, maybe I'll take the current conservative way of thinking - pick the reality of a situation that I wish were true, believe it is, and then dismiss any sort of logic or science in favor of gut feelings, god's will or some talking head on the radio/TV to back up my point of view. 9/11 was a conspiracy - my cat told me so.

What's the deal with Whisler? He started the season looking decent, but he's really falling off. And Sisco goes a third of an inning to start?

There is an article about this posted a few days ago in the GOP candidate thread as well, if anyone wants to read it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 07:21 PM) The truth is, you can't PROVE, nor can these other people, PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "global warming" exists. Let me put it this way. About 99% of the "global warming" scientists wouldn't have a job or funding to do research if they said it was just "climatalogical changes" in the earth and that humanity couldn't destroy earth (short of a nuclear explosion) if they tried. The earth will always adapt and change. Now that is ridiculous. When THOUSANDS of serious, peer-reviewed scientific articles and the great majority of the scientific community all agree on it, but literally 2 or 3 do not... you cannot say that 99% of them are somehow motivated by funding concerns. Also, of course the planet will adapt and change. That is the whole point. The earth is a living organism, and its way of "adapting" is far better than any technology we possess at protecting itself. And if we are the ones damaging ecosystems, then who do you think will feel the results? The earth will be fine. WE won't. That is the reason why conservationism and environmentalism are so important. Oh yeah, and nice obfuscation of the point. We are talking about the government censoring scientific findings here. And frankly, if something so overwhelmingly scientifically backed can simply be edited by the government as being "opinion", then what is the point of having scientific work by the government at all? You might as well hand over our research, science and development to Penn and Teller. If it can all be edited, cloaked in mystery or hidden from view, its worthless.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) A gut feeling perhaps? I have no problem with it so long as they are editing unsubstantiated opinion and not fact. Much like journalism these days, the scientific community has been spouting opinion, and not theory based on fact. While there are scientists out there who do that, to say its somehow prevalent or common is ridiculous (by comparing it to media, who does it constantly, you insinuate its commonplace). This administration has a habit of editing anything hinting at the possibility of Global Warming (at least until very recently). That isn't editing opinion - its trying to manipulate science.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) Only Joe Crede is on the right side of 30, and everyone believes his days as a Sox player are numbered. So far, no one has offered any names. If you know who they are, I'm asking if there is anyone (non-pitcher) going down through AAA, AA, to A-ball or Rookie league. Anyone? Dude, you quoted a post with a whole list of names, then said that no one offered any names. If you are talking about people NOT with the big club yet, or who just joined this year, then its a silly argument - because there is no telling. Despite what some may say, NO one can tell you of player X at AA ball is going to be an all star. Most here would agree that the organization is definitely lacking in position player prospects. But the all star game isn't really a good measure to use.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 02:14 PM) THAT would be a good one. And make sure to have it trigger automatically, regardless of what party the person belonged to so they can all sweat. Exactly. After all, he is a uniter, not a divider.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) Apples and oranges. Executive order can't quite be used for what you're suggesting except in small insignificant areas. That's defintely an important limitation - executive orders can't be used to, say, pass a law making earmarks illegal (that was the "x" in my post by the way, not sure what happened there). But, you CAN pass EO's to pick off some little pieces here and there. For example, you could order the OMB to devote significant resources to checking all earmarks against all business dealings (in the public record) of the signing congresspeople. And then if anything fishy crops up, the FBI can go get warrants and dig further. That might make them think twice about giving them out. This won't happen of course for lots of political reasons, but, it would probably help Bush's image at this point.

Consider the following: --Bush's anger at this Congress, and even the last one as well, at their inability to act, and tendency to overspend --The simple nature of some of the fixes that might get the wheels moving again in Congress, such as having financial regs with real teeth, getting rid of x's (or replacing with a better system), etc. --The fact that Bush is seen as such a negative factor for the GOP --The fact that the GOP has an element now clamoring for some fiscal discipline And there seems to be a great opportunity here for BushCo to really accomplish something. Why not use the power of executive order to accomoplish some of these things? If Congress is unable to mobilize pass anything anyway, they won't be able to override them easily. The wording would need to be careful as to not step outside the bounds of the executive as well. But SOME things could be accomplished, in regards to these areas.

It was an highly unprofessional thing to do one way or the other, not to mention a bad thing to do to her kids. Newscasters nowadays are at so much lower a standard - no need to be intelligent, or have actual journalistic skills and integrity... just need a pretty face and the right voice.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) What's the remote possibility that he is being showcased for some upcoming trades. I asked that earlier myself, I think that may be the primary reason for it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) Because she didn't fire them. She also honestly was right in the first place - if you're going to do it, poop can the whole bunch. And beyond that, again, these people work at the will of the president. I guess that's illegal now. Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression was, she did NOT do what you say. She chose to fire (or worked on firing) only the politically select few. You may feel that's OK, but its not like she was being all honorable or anything - it was a purely political action.

Fields is not in the same ballpark as Crede defensively. Crede, even with the back problems, has been a top 5 defensive 3B for a few years now. Fields is somewhere a little below average. With time, he can probably be average or better, but will never be near Joe's level. That said, Fields looks far better at the plate now than Crede has for most of his career.

For the record, while I think Bush has been a horrible President, I don't believe I have seen cause for impeachment. He has skirted the line, but I simply don't see any per se illegal acts for a foundation of said case.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 08:44 AM) It is true that the Sox are under no pressure to make any deals. Nothing much is being offered for Dye or Iguchi. They could wait 3 weeks and see if it gets better or hold onto them and see what happens.....re-signings, draft picks, arbitration, later trades etc. HOWEVER, I don't think that Kenny has the nature for that. He will want to make some deal for both the thrill of it as well as to shake things up a little. Something will go down this month. I would bet on it. How do you know that? I am dying for some good updates of info, if you have story to link to.

People here seem to be in one of two camps: the hearings are good/necessary, or Congress hasn't done anything good since about their 2nd month. Can I take option C - all of the above? QUOTE(Soxy @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 09:43 AM) he had a gut feeling?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 05:24 PM) I allow for the fact that he should watch what he says. But, I also realize that the question was a vague question "what do you think of the current threat level"... and he just replied without really sitting there being all politically correct. I just think it's a little outrageous to be all outraged. Looking at the thread, the most animated posts seem to have come from you. I was just pointing out that Chertoff screwed up, and that his screw up is endemic to the way this administration handles its business.

Giulian's Swift Boat?